IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF AUGUST 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE WRIT PETITION NO.14389/2018 (GM-RES) BETWEEN:
SRI MOHAN KUMAR G, S/O SRI LATE GANGAIAH, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, SS AD SERVICE, NO.1, C.K. COMPLEX, HEGGANAHALLI CROSS, BANGALORE – 560 091.
... PETITIONER (BY SRI SRIKANTH M.P., ADVOCATE) AND:
1. THE KARNATAKA STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, MAHITHI SOUDHA, D.DEVARAJ URS ROAD, OPP:WESTERN GATE-II, OFF: VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE - 560 001, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY.
2. OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR, RAJAJINAGAR REGISTRATION DISTRICT, 3RD FLOOR, LEELA ARCADE, BEHIND BDA COMPLEX, NAGARABHAVI, BANGALORE – 560 091, REP. BY ITS REGISTRAR.
3. THE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER OF SUB-REGISTRAR PEENYA, NO.488, "P" BLOCK, 4TH STAGE, II PHASE, PEENYA, BANGALORE-560058.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI RAJASHEKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1, SMT. PRATHIMA HONNAPURA, AGA FOR R2 AND R3) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE NOTICE DATED 24.11.2017 VIDE ANNEXURE-G; DIRECT THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO COMPLY WITH THE ORDER DATED 21.11.2017 OF THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY VIDE ANNEXURE-F AND TO PROVIDE THE COPIES AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT, 2005.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R Sri.Srikanth, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Sri Rajashekar, learned counsel for respondent No.1.
Smt.Prathima Honnapura, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondents 2 & 3.
2. Petition is admitted for hearing. With the consent of the parties, same is heard finally.
3. In this petition under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner inter alia has assailed the validity of the communication dated 24.11.2017 by which petitioner has been asked to pay the fee for supply of information under the provisions of Registration Act.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner had filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 for supply of copy of index book for the year 1945 to 2004 related to Karihobanahalli Village. Thereupon, the First Appellate Authority by order dated 21.11.2017 directed the Sub-Registrar to permit the petitioner to inspect the record and to supply him required information within a period of eight days. However, the Sub-Registrar, by a communication dated 24.11.2017, informed the petitioner that he shall pay the fee as prescribed under the Registration Act. In the aforesaid circumstances, petitioner has approached this Court.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner has filed an application under Right to Information Act and therefore, the fee is chargeable under Rule 4 of the Karnataka Right to Information Rules, 2005.
6. On the other hand, learned Additional Government Advocate inviting the attention of this Court to objections filed on behalf of respondents 2 and 3 submitted that since information sought for by the petitioner is already in public domain, petitioner ought to have approached the authority by moving an application under the provisions of Registration Act. It is further submitted that the documents which have been sought for by the petitioner do not fall within the purview of Section 8(1) of Right to Information Act.
7. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. Admittedly, the order dated 21.11.2017 passed by the First Appellate Authority has attained finality and is binding on the respondents. Respondents, admittedly, have not challenged the order dated 21.11.2017. It is also not in dispute that the aforesaid order contains a direction that after inspection, petitioner should be supplied with information as sought for by him within eight days. Rule 4 of the Karnataka Right to Information Rules, 2005 deals with levy of fee in respect of supply of information. Petitioner has made an application under Right to Information Act and order has been passed in his favour. Therefore, fee, if any, leviable on the petitioner has to be collected under the provisions of the Karnataka Right to Information Rules and the action of the respondents requiring the petitioner to pay fee as per the provisions of the Registration Act cannot be sustained in the eye of law. Hence, the communication dated 24.11.2017 issued by the Sub-Registrar insofar as it requires the petitioner to pay the fee as prescribed under the Registration Act for supply of information is hereby quashed. Needless to state that fee as prescribed under Rule 4 of the Karnataka Right to Information Rules shall be collected.
8. In the result, writ petition is allowed.
Information as sought by the petitioner shall be provided to him.
Sd/- JUDGE PKS